By Ian Verrender
Mark McInnes's head and shoulders disappeared shortly after he resigned as David Jones chief executive on June 18.
Now, as the furious shovelling continues, the hole that he dug has begun to swallow up the company's directors and the management he left in tatters.
As tawdry details of the disgraced chief executive's behaviour were laid bare yesterday, there were reports McInnes had booked himself into The Meadows, the same Arizona clinic that treated fellow ''sex addict'' Tiger Woods.
If true, this would appear to contradict McInnes's recent statement denying he was serial offender when it came to sexual harassment following extensive media reports of other alleged incidents since his dramatic departure. In that statement, he admitted only to two counts of ''inappropriate behaviour'' for which he was sorry.
Accused ... Mark McInnesCredit: Rob Homer
Behind the scenes, however, there have been some rather furious efforts by a well-known spin doctor to revise the truth and restore McInnes's tarnished reputation.
First came reports that McInnes's services as an executive were in hot demand locally and that, after a short spell in the wilderness, he would be snapped up. The subtext was that this was all a trivial matter that would blow over in no time.
More recently, there has been a repugnant attempt to impugn the character of the victim, Kristy Fraser-Kirk, the 27-year-old junior publicist who launched a $37 million damages claim against the company yesterday.
Again, that appeared to ignore the rather obvious fact that McInnes had admitted wrongdoing and had resigned over his actions.
Kristy Fraser-Kirk ... suing for $37m.Credit: Tamara Dean
Flanked by her parents, the DJs employee pledged that any money won from a settlement would be donated to charity.
Given six weeks have passed since the revelations sent shockwaves through the market, it is clear negotiations between DJs and Fraser-Kirk have broken down irretrievably at a reasonably advanced stage.
There were suggestions within the retailer yesterday that the company believed it was close to a settlement that would have avoided further legal action and embarrassment.
Clearly, there is a very wide gulf between what the company believes is an appropriate financial settlement and that claimed yesterday.
One of the more disturbing complaints by Fraser-Kirk was that she notified her immediate superiors after the first incident on May 23 at a company function, but was told that next time she should be more forceful in resisting his advances.
If true, that would indicate a breakdown in company policy relating to sexual harassment and a bizarre view that ''no'' only means ''no'' if delivered with force.
But under normal circumstances, it would be the chief executive enforcing the policy - and who would be expected to lead by example. That he was the one making the advances would explain the breakdown in company policy.
McInnes's extra curricular activities, particularly at post-function parties, were legendary. And he seemed unfazed by his lack of discretion. The lewd pick-up line reported in the affidavit, urging Fraser-Kirk to try the dessert, describing it ''like a f--- in the mouth'' appears completely in character.
Numerous women, none of whom are DJs employees, have detailed similar advances to your columnist. One, describing herself merely as an acquaintance, was stunned to receive a text message this year that read: ''C u tonight in total black lingerie, totally waxed. Not a single word to anyone.''
Within the company, the board is adamant that it had no idea of the increasingly out-of-control behaviour of its chief executive, that it had never been apprised of any inappropriate behaviour.
In any case, it argues - correctly to a degree - that it cannot be held responsible or accountable for the private life of an employee, particularly if it does not impinge on performance.
The problem with that argument is that as chief executive of a major listed company, and particularly a retail company, the lines between work and social activities become blurred; there is the view CEOs represent the company at all times.
Initially lauded for its quick and decisive response in parting company with McInnes, the board, led by Bob Savage, more recently has been on a hiding to nothing, coming under fire from those with diametrically opposed viewpoints.
There are those who criticise the board for losing a hugely successful chief executive, arguing the whole thing should simply have been swept under the carpet.
On the other side, there is an equally vociferous band of critics who believe McInnes should have been sent packing without any of the lucrative entitlements, which added up to $2 million.
The payment, it was argued, was a part settlement of $5 million worth of entitlements McInnes would have walked away with had he resigned under normal circumstances.
It was necessary, directors argue, to ensure his immediate departure that a legal compromise be reached. The alternatives were either to keep him in the job or battle it out in court.
An internal investigation into procedures to deal with harassment has found them to be sound. That, of course, would be expected.
The company no doubt would argue that despite the exceptional circumstances of the events, once discovered, it wasted no time in achieving the desired result. But McInnes's legacy will live on either in the form of a very embarrassing court case or in continued claims for restitution from aggrieved employees.
iverrender@smh.com.au